State v. St. Germain
| Decision Date | 14 February 1977 |
| Citation | 369 A.2d 631 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Allan ST. GERMAIN. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Thomas E. Delahanty, II, Dist. Atty., Auburn, for plaintiff.
Hamilton & Hardy, by John L. Hamilton, William P. Hardy, Lewiston, for defendant.
Before DUFRESNE, C. J., and POMEROY, WERNICK, ARCHIBALD and GODFREY, JJ.
Appellant, having been tried by a jury, was found guilty of violating former 17 M.R.S.A. § 754 1 (breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny). This appeal from the judgment entered on the verdict was seasonably filed.
We deny the appeal.
On the evening of December 31, 1975, snow had fallen in the city of Lewiston. As a direct result of this snowfall, sets of footprints were visible in the vicinity of the crime. The existence of these footprints was recorded in the police report and testified to at appellant's trial.
Appellant raises two issues on appeal. His first allegation of error was the trial court's refusal to admit the police report for the purpose of impeaching Officer Paterson, a witness called by the appellant.
Rule 607 of the Maine Rules of Evidence clearly allows a party to impeach his own witness. A witness may be impeached by the use of a prior inconsistent statement-written or unwritten-made by him. To be admissible, the prior statement must be inconsistent, a determination to be made by the trial judge. R. H. Field, P. L. Murray, Maine Evidence, § 613.1 (1976); see State v. Pullen, Me., 266 A.2d 222, 225 (1970).
Officer Patterson testified at trial as follows:
'Q How many sets of tracks did you observe that night?
'A I looked at one set of tracks near where the broken window was on Whipple Street.
'Q And the other set-where was the other set, over here?
'A To the Southerly side of the Aliberti building, over there.
'Q So, there are two sets, one here and one here?
'A There are tracks in two different places.
'Q What about the set of tracks emerging from behind the Aliberti office building, where were those?
'A The same place, these tracks were heading in this direction toward Main Street from the side of the building, heading from the direction of the rear.'
The police report states:
Our independent examination reveals no inconsistency so as to permit introduction of the police report as evidence of a prior inconsistent statement. The presiding Justice acted properly in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lomax v. State
...113 Ill.Dec. 451, 515 N.E.2d 260, 264 (1987) (same); United States v. Jones, 808 F.2d 561, 568 (7th Cir.1986) (same); State v. St. Germain, 369 A.2d 631, 632 (Me.1977) (same).¶ 48. Here, S.C. admitted during proffer outside the presence of the jury, to making the statements recorded by the ......
-
State v. Conlogue
...determination whether a prior statement of a witness is inconsistent with that witness's testimony given at trial. State v. St. Germain, 369 A.2d 631, 632 (Me.1977); Field & Murray, Maine Evidence § 613.1 at 162 (1976). We have examined carefully the two statements of Patricia Easler, and a......
-
State v. Allen
...statement rule: the out-of-court statement must truly be inconsistent with the witness's trial testimony, see State v. St. Germain, 369 A.2d 631, 632 (Me.1977), and the impeachment must be on a matter that is "relevant" as opposed to "collateral," see State v. Gullifer, 384 A.2d 48, 50 (Me.......
-
State v. Dodge
...inconsistent extrajudicial statements. The State argues that Rule 607, M.R.Evid., 3 clearly permits such impeachment. See State v. St. Germain, Me., 369 A.2d 631 (1977). Defendant, on the other hand, contends that notwithstanding the language of Rule 607, the trial justice should have, purs......